kassiblog.com

Monday, May 7, 2018

I don't often repost other people's blogs or articles here. I generally like my content to be largely my own and relevant to the very specific, narrow purpose of this blog, albeit heavily supported with abundant links. Also, I decided when I started this blog that I'll write when I have something to say. (Although I often have plenty to say but no time to write!)

That said, occasionally I think it is worthwhile to bring your attention to others' writing. Today is just such a day. Lest you think that Texas Right to Life and their supporters - like myself - maybe you think especially myself - are just a bunch of blowhards playing the victim and making a mountain out of a molehill, I think it would be useful for you to read what others are writing.

One such person is John Zmirak, who is quite well-known among the "conservative" Catholic blogosphere. He writes an interesting essay on The Stream comparing and contrasting the California Bishops' Conference with the TCCB. I know, right? Gasp! In Texas, we all pretty much assume nothing good comes from California - or Oklahoma - but for different reasons. I jest. A little. So when someone writes that the Bishops' Conference in Cali got it right, we Texans (and others) should take notice. Texas Bishops, listen up.

In that situation, the California Bishops opposed a bill there that "could result in the ban of books aimed at helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions" according to a LifeSiteNews article. The California Catholic Bishops issued a statement opposing the bill. Then it tweeted against the bill:

National Review's David French also covered the sweeping nature of this bill and the censorship it would unleash including the outright banning of the sale of certain books. Really? It is still 2018, isn't it? Indeed, it apparently is. Next they'll be burning books in public ceremonies. Welcome to the Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451.

Zmirak notes that the California Bishops worked "with, not against pro-family groups." (Emphasis added.) Imagine that. He then lauds them and turns right back toward Texas and states: "So bravo for California's bishops. You know who could learn something from them? The Catholic bishops of Texas." He quotes from Jason Jones' piece praising disunity in the pro-life movement because, to put it simply, there are a number of ways to reach the same goals.

(Of course, this assumes, and I will assume here merely for the sake of argument, that we all actually share the same goals. The truth is - and I'm just going to say it - I am far from convinced that Texas Right to Life and activists like myself share the same goals with these other organizations in Texas. You hear me, TAL, TCCB, and Texans for Life Coalition? I'm not the only one questioning this. As I've been saying on this blog and elsewhere on social media: by their fruits you will know them. The sour, often bitter, fruit coming from these organizations (and make no mistake, it is coordinated) is doing more to explain the problems with them than I ever could here.)

Then we get to the meat of Zmirak's piece as far as I'm concerned and I will quote it all here:

Texas Bishops Declare War on Texas Right to Life

I wish the Texas bishops took Jones’s approach. Instead, they have decided that their differences are irreconcilable. They filed for a divorce.

They announced that to every Catholic in Texas. The bishops sent a statement sent to be printed in every parish bulletin. It called on Catholics to stop supporting Texas Right to Life. That’s a shocking step for bishops to take toward such an organization. Have the bishops issued similar statements about pro-choice labor unions? About pro-immigration groups that back same-sex marriage? Not that I ever saw in my parish bulletin.

Surely Texas Right to Life has gone nuts, then. Right? Not at all. In the advisory, the bishops make their case. They cite some differences of approach on legislative strategy. And on how to score Texas representatives on life issues. Big deal.

Killing the Next Alfie Evans … in Texas

The next issue is more serious. The bishops have backed an end-of-life law that Texas Right to Life considers dangerous. As Texas Right to Life wrote in its detailed response to the bishops:

Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) grants hospitals and doctors unilateral authority to remove life-sustaining treatment from patients with a mere ten days notice, which has sped the death of hundreds of patients in Texas. TCCB vilified Texas Right to Life in the Parish Advisory for working to reform the draconian law that is worse than any statute in Britain. While TCCB’s lobbyist wholeheartedly agrees with the bishops in Britain in that doctors and hospitals should have the final authority to make life-ending decisions for patients, Pope Francis’ defense of Alfie mirrors Texas Right to Life’s patient advocacy efforts in which we work to transfer patients to willing providers in more appropriate care settings.

Churchy progressivism serves as a Gospel replacement serum. It soothes those who’ve lost their faith.

The Houston Press (not a pro-life paper) summed up TADA’s impact this way: “In Texas it doesn’t matter what instructions you’ve previously given or what your relatives say: If you’re in critical condition, you’re dependent on machines to survive and hospital officials decide it’s time to pull the plug, you will die. And it’s completely legal.”

I’m no bioethicist. But I did follow the Alfie Evans case very closely. Who were the fiercest advocates for Alfie and his parents? Not local bishops. (The Bishop of Liverpool backed the hospital.) They were lay pro-life advocates. Good people like the members of Texas Right to Life.

(Emphasis added.)

Bravo, John Zmirak! He's not even here in Texas, but can clearly see from the outside looking in that there are big problems here that make no sense at all. None whatsoever. From TADA itself to the TCCB, things are not making sense in Texas and the implications are that lives will continue to be lost and souls will continue to be scandalized. To what end? Most objective people no longer question that these other groups and the TCCB are opposing true pro-life legislation and reform. They don't question the what anymore. They do question the why. I've been trying to figure that out for at least the last five years and I still can't answer that. What I do know is that it is not enough for them to take alternative positions on legislation; it's not enough to take anti-life positions and call them pro-life; it's not enough for them to support candidates that will not protect all life; they must try to take down the only organization that is fighting for all the Alfie's in Texas. And be clear on this as well, they aren't helping people navigate the mess that is TADA that they continue to enable. But they would sure like to get rid of the only organization that is. Why? Ask them. I would only be speculating.

I have come to truly understand what the adage "it is always darkest before the dawn" means. It is getting darker here in Texas and around the world for orthodox Catholics, authentic pro-lifers, and especially those fighting the Culture of Disposal, the Culture of Death that is euthanasia. But that means that the dawn is getting closer as well. You can help in that effort to bring about the dawn. If the bishops won't see the light, maybe you can make them feel some heat. Write your bishops. Tell them they are wrong. Withhold giving until they right this ship and tell them why. Support truly pro-life organizations and their efforts. In Texas that is easy - you have one choice - Texas Right to Life. Educate your neighbors, friends, and even clergy. Vote for the right people at the right time, then hold their feet to the fire when the legislature meets. Keep up with things, make calls. Go down to Austin and tell your legislators what you want, testify about legislation, go to town hall meetings. Respectfully correct your pastors and bishops on these matters. (It is no sin to walk out of a bad homily where error is being taught and scandal committed.) You must try whether you think they'll listen or not. You are responsible for what you do; they are likewise responsible for what they're doing, not doing, and the effects of their acts and omissions. Their souls are at stake as well. Remember Matthew 18:6-9, 15-19 and Luke 17:1-3.

Be aware, be prayerful, be involved, be in it to win it and for the long haul. Have frequent recourse to the Sacraments. It is a difficult time. I know. But there is strength in numbers, in faith, in truth, and in believing and doing what is right.

Friday, May 4, 2018

The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops ("TCCB") simply will not stop with the calumny against Texas Right to Life ("TxRTL") with that ill-conceived Parish Advisory. Since my last three posts on this unfortunate, scandalous situation, not much has changed publicly, even as the Bishops backed off a bit and re-characterized it as something it was clearly not. Now they have, apparently, doubled down.

In the wake of a case of clear euthanasia in England that those bishops supported, the TCCB's attacks on TxRTL, and support of the wrong sort of candidate in Texas, there exists now a synchronicity that provides us with a particularly poignant teachable moment here...or two or three. Read on. I'll explain.

You have, no doubt, heard about Alfie Evans in England who's life-sustaining care was removed against his parents' very valiant and consistent efforts to stop it; against the efforts of the Italian government, no less, which granted him citizenship in an effort to save his life; against the efforts of even the Pope himself.

Many in the political sphere - talking heads and those who have a polarized or overly simplistic dichotomy of "good government" vs. "bad government" - have chalked this up to merely socialized medicine run amok. If only.

No, my friends, this is not merely the result of socialized medicine. It is the far more complicated result of a deep-seated philosophy rooted in eugenics and euthanasia that is spreading like the cancer it is. And it is spreading everywhere. It is in Texas through the Texas Advance Directives Act ("TADA") and it has been here in Texas officially since the law was passed 1999 and signed by Republican Governor George W. Bush. Efforts to pin this on liberal v. conservative, R v. D, red v. blue fail miserably. This is more than that. As I always say, you have to dig deeper. Issues over politics and parties. It's not as sexy. It doesn't make for the nifty soundbites. It requires more of you. But that is the reality here.

What happened to Alfie Evans can happen here. I've detailed a few of my experiences on this blog, but TxRTL has had many, many more. Hundreds more. Not only do Alfie cases happen here, an infant Texan suffered Alfie's fate almost at the same time he did.

In her own words, Emily Kebodeaux Cook of TxRTL, described her efforts to save the life of a four month old baby caught in the cross-hairs of a hospital that wanted him dead against the wishes of his family. Sound familiar?

I have written extensively on this blog as to why this is wrong morally and legally. (This post provided a catalog of my posts along with a synopsis of each). Don't you want a right to have a say in whether or when your life-sustaining care is withdrawn in Texas? Well, you don't. Not right now. We are working to change this.

And, as if our fight wasn't hard enough because of the powers-that-be in the largely anti-life medical establishment (which does not include all doctors, thankfully) and their lobbyists, we have to fight from "within" (I'm being generous here) against other groups which call themselves pro-life but which support this anti-life, anti-patient law (and, frankly, make it hard to get anything truly pro-life done).

Then, to my personal great shame as a Catholic, we have to fight our own hierarchy, which I have also detailed over and over. The TCCB consistently sides with those who do not support a patient's right to choose when his life-sustaining care will be withdrawn and those who promote euthanasia (and even abortion, which I have explained). In that post, I note that they do not have any canonical teaching authority, but nevertheless, it is a scandal in the truest sense of the concept. Lives are at stake and lost because of their efforts.

Yet, the TCCB had the audacity - and with no hint of irony or hypocrisy - to post this Tweet about Alfie:

Understand that TxRTL is doing - and has always done - here in Texas what Pope Francis sought to do in the situation of Alfie!

Understand also that TxRTL has been under near constant opposition by the TCCB and now the cold war has turned red hot with the aggressors being the TCCB. Even after the Parish Advisory turned into a fiasco - and may very well turn into much more of a problem for the TCCB in time - the TCCB has, like the errant English bishops, doubled down in their error.

The TCCB has supported - either implicitly or explicitly - a candidate named Ben Leman in the House District 13 state congressional race who is likewise endorsed by the organizations the TCCB now says speak for it. Leman is using the Parish Advisory as a weapon and in his campaign material, as you might expect.

Meanwhile, TxRTL has endorsed a candidate named Jill Wolfskill who is solidly pro-life and understands the stakes for all pro-life issues including TADA. She will do the right thing. Leman's endorsements, among other things, make clear that he is the wrong choice for those who care about liberty and life. He is so problematic that the Texas Homeschool Coalition withdrew its endorsement of him this week and threw it to Wolfskill (herself a homeschooling mother). (I have to wonder what they were thinking in the first place, but that's for another day. Or not.)

TxRTL, in my experience, has merely, occasionally responded to the TCCB and the organizations that seem to live for not much else than to muck up genuine pro-life legislative, judicial, and grassroots efforts and to attack TxRTL (sometimes seemingly out of the blue). But now they've gone on offense to further respond directly to the continuing, incessant, defamatory accusations and attacks by the TCCB and what many of us call the faux pro-life groups.

I quote the entire thing here in blue, but you can read it on their website:

Texas Right to Life was recently the subject of a libelous Parish Advisory issued by the political arm of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops (TCCB). In an effort to slander Jill Wolfskill, the Texas Right to Life endorsed candidate for Texas State House District 13, and the major conservative organizations supporting her, Ben Leman has echoed the false claims by TCCB in their politically-motivated Parish Advisory. As practicing Catholics, we were stunned and disappointed that TCCB’s political arm would make such a vitriolic condemnation of the largest, oldest, and only statewide Pro-Life organization in Texas.

The assertions of the TCCB are absolutely, demonstrably false.

While officially non-sectarian, Texas Right to Life has exhibited leadership consistent with Catholic theology on Pro-Life issues since the organization’s legal incorporation in 1973. While we recognize the role TCCB’s lobbyist has in advocating for certain legislation on behalf of Texas Catholic bishops, TCCB lacks canonical authority to repudiate the Life-saving work of Texas Right to Life. Although Texas Right to Life has never spoken on behalf of the Catholic Church (or any denomination), the mission and goals of Texas Right to Life are in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and with the longstanding Christian tradition of protecting all innocent human Life.

Catholic Teaching on Medical Ethics

Recently, the plight of the English baby, Alfie Evans, enthralled the world because of the sickening disregard for human Life demonstrated by the British hospital and government. Sadly, Alfie died five days after being forcibly removed from his ventilator. While Pope Francis advocated for the right of Alfie’s parents to seek further medical treatment, the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales abominably sided with the British Courts.

Such a disagreement elucidates a common occurrence: The opinions and policies promulgated by some of the conferences of bishops often differ radically from the Vatican and are not to be taken as absolute truth, particularly since these conferences of bishops are political administrative entities without canonical authority. In fact, what happened in England is a too common occurrence in Texas. The “ten-day law” of the Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) grants hospitals and doctors unilateral authority to remove life-sustaining treatment from patients with a mere ten days notice, which has sped the death of hundreds of patients in Texas. TCCB vilified Texas Right to Life in the Parish Advisory for working to reform the draconian law that is worse than any statute in Britain. While TCCB’s lobbyist wholeheartedly agrees with the bishops in Britain in that doctors and hospitals should have the final authority to make life-ending decisions for patients, Pope Francis’ defense of Alfie mirrors Texas Right to Life’s patient advocacy efforts in which we work to transfer patients to willing providers in more appropriate care settings.

Moreover, Section 2278 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly affirms the right of patients and their families to make appropriate medical judgements within the correct moral framework:

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. (emphasis added)

In attempts to reform or overturn TADA, Texas Right to Life, acting in concordance with the Natural Law, has demonstrated adherence to Section 2278, espousing policies that prioritize the wishes and directives of the patients to continue treatment. Contrarily, TCCB’s lobbyist supports TADA, which nullifies the right of the patient or his family to make medical decisions. Rebuking Texas Right to Life for opposing TADA is absurd, not to mention a warped misrepresentation of Texas Right to Life’s position. The political arm of TCCB and Ben Leman have enfeebled themselves by attacking Texas Right on this front.

Catholic Teaching on Abortion

The political arm of TCCB has also actually attacked Texas Right to Life for being too ardent in the defense of preborn Life. Texas Right to Life has led the effort to enact Life-saving legislation that makes appreciable efforts in destroying the faulty foundation upon which Roe v. Wade was fabricated. Texas Right to Life spearheaded the passage of the Sonogram Law in 2011 and the Preborn Pain Act in 2013. Both of these provisions have saved the lives of thousands of preborn Texans.

This past year, Texas Right to Life championed the Dismemberment Abortion Ban, a bill banning a gruesome form of abortion in which a living preborn child is torn apart limb from limb while her heart remains beating. Conferences of bishops supported Dismemberment Abortion Bans in their respective states, including Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The measure passed with bipartisan support in both chambers of the Texas Legislature despite active opposition of the ban by a small, local organization extolled by TCCB, Texas Alliance for Life (TAL).

These prudent, incremental reforms work toward achieving the ultimate goal of overturning Roe. Although vocal on many other issues, TCCB’s lobbyist was silent on this measure in the capitol but offered letters questioning the prudence of the Dismemberment Abortion Ban and even disparaged Texas Right to Life for supporting the bill. In short, TCCB’s Advisory impugns Texas Right to Life because we are just too Pro-Life.

Texas Right to Life Voter Guides

The last attack in the Advisory from TCCB aims at Texas Right to Life’s political endorsements, or lack thereof, which are largely informed by the votes taken by officeholders. These votes are a tangible indicator of a legislator’s true positions on Pro-Life issues. Often the legislators opposed by Texas Right to Life voted against various Pro-Life bills and amendments.

All votes, including votes from the most recent 2017 Sessions of the Texas Legislature, are featured in the Pro-Life Scorecard on Texas Right to Life’s website. Even with their blatant anti-Life votes, these legislators are often supported by TAL and other groups allied with TCCB. Thus, the Advisory from the political arm of the TCCB appears to be an effort to retain power and influence in Austin rather than an effort to build a Culture of Life and inform parishioners of the truly Pro-Life candidates.

TCCB’s lobbyist and Ben Leman have engaged in calumny against Texas Right to Life; they have taken the odious step of distorting the truth in pursuit of raw power. For over forty years Texas Right to Life has courageously fought for innocent human Life, all human Life, even when doing so is politically unpopular and even when we had to fight alone. Asserting that Texas Right to Life is anti-Catholic is demonstrably false and beneath the bishops of Texas.

Believe in Jill Wolfskill, who is running for the Texas House so that she can lend her voice and her vote to the Pro-life majority to protect all innocent human Life. Jill will work to reform the very anti-Life law supported by TCCB’s lobbyist that threatens the lives of hospitalized patients. For House District 13, Jill Wolfskill is the only honest Pro-Lifer.

Yours for Life,

Elizabeth and Jim Graham

Director and President

Texas Right to Life

This letter is proudly paid for by Texas Right to Life.

So there you have it. TxRTL has laid out the issues, corrected the record, and told those of you in HD 13 for whom to vote based on their assessment of who is truly pro-life. They have explained how the Voters Guides and Scorecards are prepared as well in this video.

Let me take a moment here and disagree with TxRTL. I know, you're probably shocked, but as I've said, I do have my own mind and opinions on things. Frankly, I think TxRTL has been too easy on the TCCB as a whole - that is, in my view, on the Bishops themselves. It seems to me that the buck stops with those who employ and direct those making mischief and publicly espousing positions contrary to the Catholic faith. It seems to me that the Bishops, the TCCB as a whole, could reign this lobbyist in, could shift the agenda and tone, Catechize her - if they wanted to. But TxRTL's letter is focused on the lobbyist and lobbying arm of the TCCB.

Rather, TxRTL has extended to TCCB, the Bishops themselves, a generosity and shown a graciousness that has not been reciprocated by the TCCB or individual Bishops in any way that I am aware of. Certainly none have done so publicly. In particular, Bishop Olson, as I have covered here recently, seemed to completely lose control of himself in his vehemence and focused attacks on TxRTL. So out of control was he, that he attacked lay persons publicly on Twitter! It was a scene and most unbecoming to a man in his position. But TxRTL has not responded in kind, even though I believe they would be justified in so doing.

By their fruits, you will know them. All of them.

I hope this brings you up to date on some things - here and over there in England and the Vatican - and I hope you go out and vote for the right people in each election, every time. It matters.

Sunday, March 4, 2018

I come to you with a big update on the Parish Advisory debacle wherein the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops ("TCC" or "TCCB") basically banned Texas Right to Life ("TRTL") from parish properties, made other statements about them that are demonstrably untrue, have yet to be supported with examples or facts, and gave its absolute endorsement to Texas Alliance for Life ("TAL") and Texans for Life Coalition ("TLC").

I have recently blogged about the Parish Advisory, what it says, and the implications of it here and here. I have requested a meeting with Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson on the matter about a dozen times. I have written a certified letter, tweeted, and emailed him. Others have made that same request of him. He has, as I expected, ignored those requests. I will take you through some of his more memorable tweets on the matter in a bit. Why? Because you need to know where your Bishops are on these things. You need to know what we're up against. And, you need to see why this has to become the beginning of a much larger movement to take back our Church. We are in crisis. That is not news. What may be news to you is that this issue has touched a nerve with people - not just because of its unfair attack on TRTL - but because right thinking Catholics see that this is emblematic of what is wrong with this Bishops' Conference (and so many others) and the Church as a whole right now. People want to do something to right this ship. More on that in a moment. Let's get to the update first.

On March 2, 2018, EWTN (the Eternal Word Television Network, a Catholic media outlet) interviewed San Angelo Bishop Michael J. Sis about the Parish Advisory.

In it, Bishop Sis makes a few rather shocking statements given the history of it all. You will see in a moment the contrast between how he now characterizes this Parish Advisory versus how it has been handled by Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson before it blew up on them. I want to get into all of that with you in some depth for a number of reasons. First, the Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops is clearly backtracking and trying to undo some of what Olson has done. Second, however, Bishop Sis continues to promote a false narrative about Texas Right to Life - that is, that they somehow have sought to teach on or make statements about Catholic Doctrine authoritatively. That has never been done and despite repeated requests, no specifics have been given. Third, backtracking and "re-characterizing" the Parish Advisory is wholly insufficient. While it is mildly gratifying to see a bit of "crawfishing" as we'd say here in Texas (backing away from something), it is simply not enough. They cannot now act like this was something different than what they intended initially when they believed that everyone would just be in lockstep with them because they were told what to do. We will not err by clericalism. The TCC should know this. We have made some progress showing them this. Let's hold them accountable - as best we can - and I will show you how in a moment.

But let's continue the examination of this interview with Bishop Sis. He begins the interview by saying, "First, of all I think it's really important to remember that this was a note to our pastors. It was not a public press release."

Really, now? This was not to be a "public press release"? It was supposed to be in every parish bulletin and announced from every pulpit last Sunday - which would be a wide public release. What difference adding "press" to that makes is lost on me. For example, Bishop Olson tweeted the following on February 22, 2018:

That seems like it was intended to be pretty publicly released to me. Was the press then supposed to ignore it because it was not labeled "public press release"?

Bishop Olson also tweeted:

Although he was trying to "subtweet" Chris Salcedo, the point is, he was re-emphasizing how widely this Parish Advisory was to be disseminated - to at least the Catholic public. More on this in just a moment.

The Dallas Catholic Diocese has it on the homepage of their website. (Tyler, San Angelo, San Antonio, Houston-Galveston, Beaumont, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Victoria, Amarillo, El Paso, Laredo, and Lubbock did not - at least not on their homepages which is what I checked.)

The Diocese of Austin did respond to a question on Bishop Olson's Twitter page as follows, so at some level they were pushing this also:

To be diplomatic about this, Bishop Sis seems a bit uninformed. The facts do not comport with his representation in this interview. To be fair, perhaps Bishop Olson went rogue and this was not meant to be widely disseminated, but Bishop Olson tweeted for days about it. For example, four days after it was released he was retweeting his own newspaper's tweets of an article by Crux:

No brother bishop called him up and said, "Hey, this was not supposed to be public"? Apparently not.

Bishop Sis continues: "And the whole logic of this message to our pastors is this: that is, a Bishop is entrusted to teach the Catholic faith to the people of their dioceses. And a pastor is responsible for guiding the faithful in their parish in understanding, a comprehensive understanding, of Catholic teaching under the guidance of the local bishop. And, of course, Texas Right to Life has not been entrusted with that mission. That's not in their job description. That's not the responsibility of Texas Right to Life to define Catholic teaching." (Emphasis added.)

A few comments on this. First, it is manifestly untrue that TRTL has ever tried to go onto a parish property and do this. The TCC gives no example of when that has ever happened. Second, Bishop Sis admits that teaching Catholic doctrine is "not in [TRTL's] job description." Exactly. It is not. That is not in their "What We Are"or "What We Do" statements on their website or what they do. So what's the problem? By Bishop Sis' own admission, TRTL does not seek to do this. This is clearly a manufactured justification for this Parish Advisory which was about other motives as you'll see.

But let's go deeper. Search "Catholic doctrine" on the website and you get one result from 2016, which notes that former VP candidate Tim Kaine's pro-abortion views were at odds with Catholic teaching (that is indisputable) and warns of a fake Voter's Guide alleged to be from Pope Francis. Search Catholic doctrine (no quotation marks) and you get four results. One is the Tim Kaine article.

The next result is an article by Bishop Emeritus Gracida who wrote in response to a public 2014 attack by an individual on TRTL and noted that: "Additionally, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops has no canonical authority or official status in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and as the political advocacy arm of the bishops of Texas, the TCC is not the magisterial arbiter of moral doctrine in Texas (or elsewhere), nor does the TCC hold any authority over individual Catholics." This is extremely applicable here. The TCC with this Parish Advisory has overstepped its authority and we are not bound by anything they say about morality.

This is very important given that the TCC has stated in the Parish Advisory that: "Texas Right to Life is not to be confused with Texas Alliance for Life or Texans for Life Coalition, which are separate organizations and remain consistent with the bishops' positions." (Emphasis added.) As I noted in my prior post on this, "Thus, TAL and TLC were given a robust, unqualified, absolute endorsement in the Parish Advisory. That will become more significant as we delve deeper into the substance." I also noted that, " The TCCB - thankfully - does not go so far as to say these are consistent the the Church's position. This is a distinction with an important difference as this situation makes painfully clear." Given TAL's and TLC's positions on certain matters that the TCC states is consistent with theirs, the TCC is extremely compromised. I laid out a number of these issues in my prior blog post. An additional issue is that TAL's executive director testified against the dismemberment abortion ban.

(A quick explanation here: Pojman referred to his testimony about being "on" the bill, but it was in opposition to it in substance. That is a way to avoid going on the record as against, but the substance is what you look to. Watch his full testimony in the link above - and then watch Senator Perry's very astute, logical responses. Also, note that to the left, the woman in the green jacket is Kyleen Wright, Executive Director of TLC, also one of the organization that the TCC endorsed as being consistent with its own positions. Then, I have to take a moment here and say that Pojman's quote of St. Thomas More, "I am the King's good servant, but God's first" in this context is totally inappropriate. More upheld his faith rather than be pragmatic and go along with the King and was beheaded as a result. He is a Catholic Saint because he was martyred for sticking to his guns on a matter of morality. Pojman is not putting morality and principles first, but what he believes is pragmatism by predicting what one elderly justice on the U.S. Supreme Court might do. Pojman testified against a bill to ban dismemberment abortion; just as Planned Parenthood did. This is consistent with the TCC's position apparently by their own terms. Good to know. Avoid them all if you are truly pro-life.)

The third result is a 2013 article entitled "Hostile Orders" which first appeared at AmericanThinker.com and was reprinted with permission. It was not an original article written by TRTL, but it discusses DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate Orders) in the context of discussing the Catholic "principle of subsidiarity" in the context of the SB 303 battle raging at that time. In so doing, the article links to this article on the Vatican's website and quotes from it. Then it concludes that SB 303 violates that principle. I have said the same. It did.

Finally, the fourth article is entitled "Planned Parenthood President Joins Ford Foundation." It noted that "'Catholics for Choice' advocates abortion in direct contradiction of established Catholic Church doctrine." Again, that is an established fact and the article notes that the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops has condemned them. Indeed, Bishop Olson actually tweeted a link to this statement he made back 2016 just last week condemning Catholics for Choice. So surely, there is no complaint about this being some error in presenting Catholic doctrine by TRTL.

So, what is the issue here? Where has TRTL sought to teach Catholic doctrine at all, much less incorrectly on parish property (or anywhere else)? Where did it seek to "define" Catholic teaching on parish property or using parish families or anywhere else as Bishop Sis claimed in his interview? TRTL, which, by the way, is made up of more than just Catholics, has mentioned Catholic doctrine in exactly four places on its website. Mentioned, not taught. Two of those articles were written by others, one of whom is a Bishop in Texas. One article comports exactly with something Bishop Olson has written. The other notes that there was no Voter's Guide to the U.S presidential election from Pope Francis. So why the condemnation and banning from parish sites?

Let's continue with what Bishop Sis said in his interview. The interviewer asked him: "So, your excellency, what will happen to those pastors who don't follow suit? Are there any repercussions?" Sis answered: "No, we have not put forth any particular policy of that nature."

Well, Bishop Olson had one of his own that he tweeted to the world:

He made clear that he was following up on any reports that the Parish Advisory was not mentioned and/or in a bulletin and posted updates:

Most people did not respond favorably to these tweets, to which he replied:

In addition to the very condescending tone, please note what Bishop Gracida said above about the TCC's authority. And this was a TCC document as evidenced by the letterhead and the tweet by the Austin Diocese above.

Finally, a note on people's reactions. Many are familiar with the TCC's compromised position on these matters having allied itself with organizations that do not actually support life principles. In the past I have talked about the cozy relationship between TAL and the Texas Medical Association. TAL and the TMA were on the same side of SB 303 and other efforts to either introduce faux reform bills or undermine true reform bills. Please note that the TMA is a pro-abortion organization. Yet, TAL can be said to carry the water for this organization when it comes to certain legislation, including refusal to treat and end-of-life legislation. Remember that the TCC has all but said TAL speaks for it. Put that together yourself and see the implications for legislation and morality. If the TCC had any teaching authority, it has abdicated it long ago - but most recently through this ill-conceived Parish Advisory. Again, they have supported politicians who refused to even consider closing an abortion loophole allowing for the abortion of babies diagnosed with fetal abnormalities. Many of those legislators were endorsed by TAL which speaks consistently with the TCC's or bishops' positions. That means those are the TCC endorsements by the language the TCC used in its Parish Advisory. I covered this in my prior post.

Those who have followed this closely know the full story. One such person tweeted as much and look at Bishop Olson's response:

So Bishop Olson accused this person - publicly - of sin and slander. But this person only tweeted something that is demonstrably true which I have also shown you. At that point, I tweeted to Olson again myself:

I noted that there were still no facts to support the allegations against TRTL, renewed my offer to meet with him, and asked him to stop attacking the laity as this was just further scandal. Perhaps coincidentally, shortly after this, he stopped tweeting about the Parish Advisory.

Returning to Bishop Sis' interview, he next states that he wants to make sure that their pastors know that parishioners need to know that if an organization is recruiting there, that the organization is not representing the Catholic Church formally. But who thinks this? Many organizations use parish facilities - the Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts (despite their close association with Planned Parenthood), homeschool groups, mothers' groups, etc. But the truth is, this Parish Advisory banned TRTL from using parish facilities. It was no mere clarification. And, there was nothing to clarify as I have pointed out - TRTL has not sought to teach or define Catholic doctrine on parish property.

Bishop Sis said it was not the point of the memo. to malign any organization, but just clarify the use of facilities and teaching. Really? Because it banned an organization, which certainly maligns them, as does accusing them of misrepresenting Church doctrine. Then it endorsed two organizations who the TCC says, without qualification, holds positions consistent with the Bishops, thereby stating, by implication that TRTL does not. In this case, that is good because if the TRTL held positions consistent with the TCC I'd have to write about them and call them out and we'd have no one truly defending life in Texas.

Bishop Sis then says that we need to keep in mind that the big picture is to build a culture of life. That's fine. That should be the goal. However, as I have demonstrated, that is not what the TCC is doing nor what this Parish Advisory did. Far from it.

The Bishop concludes with a call for unity. That would be nice, but we cannot undermine sound pro-life principles just for the sake of getting along. You can't split a baby. You can't kill half a patient. On some matters, there is no room for compromise. Life issues are such matters. True incrementalism if we have to, but not in lieu of pushing hard for the best we can get first.

So, there you have it. The TCC has backed off the Parish Advisory - re-characterized it (frankly, mischaracterized it) - but has not retracted it. Further, it continued the false narrative that TRTL has sought to teach or define Church doctrine with authority without any examples or proof of that. I could not find any myself as I explained above.

So what was all of this about, I have been asked? Well, given that TAL and TLC hold positions consistent with the TCC, given that one big issue was the TRTL Voter's Guide, given that this Parish Advisory was released on February 22, 2018, during early primary voting, given that it was pushed hard in the two dioceses where there are some hotly contested races, and given that the organizations have endorsed opposing candidates, I think we all know what was at play here. Politics. Not principles, but politics.

The interview begins with this quote:

This is the kind of politics that the Church has no business in. But the TCC has aligned with two organizations that push certain candidates very hard who are not truly pro-life as I have explained. They also push legislation that undermines efforts to protect the life as I have explained or that does not protect life at all. (For example, TAL pushed a bill that became law which focused on what to do with the remains of aborted babies' bodies. TRTL, on the other hand, was focused on a dismemberment abortion ban and closing the loophole that allows the abortion of babies diagnosed with fetal abnormalities. One group was focused on what to do with babies whose death was caused by abortion; one was trying to keep those babies from becoming victims of abortion so their bodies would not need to be cremated or buried. The contrast is stark. And telling.)

Go to Bishop Olson's Twitter page - look at the tweets and replies. People are truly scandalized. One poor guy said this was discouraging him from returning to the Church. That is just beyond scandalous and something for which clergy will have to account. They are responsible for souls and lives, but not primary elections other than to accurately teach the faith and let voters use their well-formed consciences to make their choice. The TCC has lost way on what its duties are. This has been an enormous embarrassment to many Catholics. The TCC has refused to support its allegations in any way. Given all of this, there is only one thing to do.

The TCC should fully retract this Parish Advisory and apologize for the scandal it has caused to everyone, from TRTL to the laity. That is the only right thing to do.

I have never had a post so widely viewed and shared as my prior post to this one. Nor have I had so many people contact me in various ways to discuss this issue and thank me for bringing it to their attention and spreading the word. I have not been alone in my efforts. Representative Matt Rinaldi's letter has garnered a great deal of press. It was well-written and spot on. Plenty of other Catholic and political bloggers, followers, and commentators - Catholic and otherwise - have been shocked at this unprecedented display of raw politics and abuse of clerical power.

The movement has begun to take back our Church. Please keep the pressure on all of our Bishops in Texas. Respectfully let them know that playing politics in this manner, ignoring sound Church teaching, and engaging in defamation and calumny is unacceptable. Respectfully, demand that they retract this statement and apologize to both TRTL and all of the lay faithful who have been scandalized by this truly unfortunate shocking display. Then ask them to find new advisors.

Be forewarned. Bishop Olson is blocking some people from his Twitter page who dare to question him. Two of my friends have been and one in particular hardly said anything at all.

If that happens to you, do not lose heart, however. Twitter is not our only means of communication. Screenshot your block notice, disseminate it, and then go on to call, write, email, and contact the Bishop and TCC directly. In fact, do all of this. This cannot go on. The Bishops are supposed to have missions from God that they need to focus on and not incite inter-organizational conflict as they have here.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

In the wake of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops' ("TCCB" or "TCC") "Parish Advisory" (see this post) seeking to ban Texas Right to Life ("TxRTL") from parish properties statewide, embargoing any information coming from them in order to keep it from Catholics, and making all sorts of allegations against it for which there factual support is still entirely lacking (and I'm not the only one who has been asking for it), various questions have arisen. One is where the TCCB stands on certain matters, including the Texas Advance Directives Act ("TADA") to which this blog has been almost entirely dedicated. The Parish Advisory mentions in Issue 2 "Conflicts on end-of-life reform" but that is code for TADA. I have been asked how I can claim that the TCC supports TADA, and, therefore, involuntary passive euthanasia of patients. What evidence do I have? Well, first, I have covered it on this blog for four years (but it has been going on much longer than that) and below I catalog and summarize prior posts on all of these matters for you. Second, I'm presenting here the Amici Curiae brief that the TCCB and other organizations filed supporting TADA in a lawsuit brought to challenge its application to a patient and its constitutionality. In their own words, they explain their support of TADA and all it stands for.

Let me begin with a note about terminology. I've discussed this before but let me recap. Why do I refer to TADA as "involuntary passive euthanasia"? First, TADA allows a hospital to withdraw your life-sustaining care against your will; it does not require anyone to consider your thoughts on the matter at all. Thus, if it is used against you against your will, you are subjected to something that is involuntary. Second, "passive euthanasia" is distinguished from "active euthanasia." "Passive euthanasia"is death brought about by the denial of something without which you will die. It can be air (ventilators), nutrition, hydration, etc. "Active euthanasia," on the other hand, is that which Jack Kevorkian promoted - a shot or pills, etc. are administered - to directly and quickly bring about your death. TADA allows for passive, but not active euthanasia. But allowing the one sets up a slippery slope. There have already been calls to allow active euthanasia in Texas.

One other term should be addressed as well. This dispute has been characterized as being about "end-of-life" reform or legislation. Understand that in some cases the patient is not at the end of their lives. Often the issue is a refusal to treat a patient with a serious illness, a need for medical intervention to sustain their lives (but who might live a long time if treatment is not denied), a person with a disability, or even someone who suffered a serious traumatic injury and just needs more time to heal, and who might make a full recovery. It is simpler and maybe "cleaner" for some to characterize such people as always being at death's door; a person who someone is trying to keep alive at all costs in some hopeless, cruel endeavor meant to only cause suffering so that the clueless, distraught family doesn't have to "face reality." That paints a narrative where euthanasia seems the humane thing (even if it were moral).

The truth is, there is a great deal of discrimination here against those with disabilities or medical needs that are not otherwise "terminal." The situation is not so unlike the exception in Texas allowing abortion of unborn babies diagnosed with "fetal abnormalities" at all points in the pregnancy even after the important 20 week gestational age when science proves that babies can feel pain. Certain Republicans (not endorsed by TxRTL, of course) refused to even consideran amendment to a bill that would have closed this loophole and prohibited all abortions after 20 weeks. Babies diagnosed with "fetal abnormalities" do not have the same right to life in Texas even among certain "pro-life" Republicans. There is great discrimination in existence here against those with disabilities from womb to tomb including among those who call themselves pro-life. Think about that.

Concerning the matter at hand, I have publicly stated that the TCCB supports TADA and I have received some flack and pushback from people, who I am sure are well-meaning, but refuse to believe that their Bishops could err (clericalismis an error, by the way) and have demanded proof that the TCCB supports involuntary passive euthanasia and/or TADA. Although this proof exists in the statements made in the Parish Advisory itself coupled with the language of TADA, some are not convinced.

I have also directed people here, to this blog, which has covered this issue for nearly four years - in great substantive detail. You can look at any number of the following posts to learn more about the law, the morality, the victims, the organizations involved, the conflicts (between victims and the law; between the law and morality; between organizations; between the TCCB and Church teaching; there is a lot of conflict here; but just as we can't split the baby that one might seek to abort, we can't half way kill the ill patient). You can read:

this post (where I lay out the issues with TADA and the TCCB for the first time);

this post (where I take issue with a PolitiFact hit piece on the issue and discuss the really unfortunate, macabre language the TCCB uses in the context of TADA (and has continued to use, more on that below));

this post (where some of the TCCB's thinking is exampled in more detail);

this post (where I describe one of my experiences attending a hospital ethics committee hearing where TADA was invoked in order to withdraw a patient's life-sustaining care in order to hasten his death);

this post (where a proposed reform to TADA was amended so that it could be supported as an incremental improvement to the law; NOTE: one of the TCCB's primary complaints (Issue 1) is that TxRTL opposes incrementalism; this is just one piece of evidence demonstrating the falsity of the allegations against them);

this post (where we see TADA being used against a patient, Chris Dunn);

this post (the date of Chris Dunn's death; the hospital never diagnosed or treated him for his underlying condition while in the hospital; he did not die because of the withdrawal of his care, but only because a lawsuit was filed to prevent that, and the hospital relented);

this post (where I analyze the lawsuit filed by Dunn prior to his death (and then continued by his Estate and mother) to challenge the constitutionality of the law as it provides absolutely no due process for a patient; and the difference between a natural and hastened death);

this post (where I provide the actual court documents in the Dunn case and show the hospital sought to be his guardian so as to make his life-ending decisions for him; present a pro-life out-of-state doctor's published article discussing TADA after Dunn's death; TAL's response to that article and public endorsement of euthanasia; the doctor's reply; TAL's and the TCCB's close association (as further proven by the Parish Advisory); and explain the "feud" between TAL and TxRTL);

this post (where I provide an update of the Dunn case where even the State of Texas says that TADA is unconstitutional and the Attorney General - who is charged with defending the State's laws - will not); or

this post (where I describe yet another experience I had while attending a hospital medical ethics committee hearing seeking to withdraw a patient's life-sustaining care in order to hasten his death and note, among other things, that two of the members SLEPT during the proceedings).

In addition to that above: the TCCB, TAL, Texans for Life Coalition ("TLC") and others filed an Amici Curiae brief in the Chris Dunn case when it was pending at the trial court level in support of TADA. This is a "friend of the court" brief which is filed by those who are not technically parties to the case who want to jump in, put in their two cents, and claim an interest in the outcome. It is rather unusual for that to be done in a case still at the trial court level as this is normally done at the appellate court level. (FULL DISCLOSURE: The Dunn case is on appeal and I am one of the attorneys who helped write the appellate brief. Therefore, I will not discuss the appeal itself further at this point.)

NOTE:The Parish Advisory stated: "Texas Right to Life is not to be confused with Texas Alliance for Life or Texans for Life Coalition, which are separate organizations and remain consistent with the bishops' positions." (Emphasis added.) Thus, TAL and TLC were given a robust, unqualified, absolute endorsement in the Parish Advisory. That will become more significant as we delve deeper into the substance.

Here is the file-stamped cover page for their brief:

Then, significantly for the purpose of this blog, I want you to see the stated "Interest of Amici Curiae" - in other words, the organizations' explanations to the Court for why they believe they have an interest in this litigation and why the court should listen to what they have to say. I'll present each of the four pages and then comment below.

So there you have it. The TCCB, TAL, and TLC have each come out in support of TADA in a brief opposing the constitutional challenge to the law which gives you - the patient - no due process rights. None whatsoever.

TLC goes further and says you have no Constitutional right to medical care at all! So if medical care is required to sustain your life, you have no Constitutional right to life by this logic. Good to know. Also, and this is relevant, the executive director of TLC, Kyleen Wright gave this testimony in support of using aborted baby tissue for research so long as the women know what will happen to their babies' bodies.

NOTE:The Parish Advisory stated: "Texas Right to Life is not to be confused with Texas Alliance for Life or Texans for Life Coalition, which are separate organizations and remain consistent with the bishops' positions." (Emphasis added.) Arguably then, these are the positions of the TCCB. There were no qualifications given to the absolute TCCB endorsement of these organizations and what they stand for. The Catholic Church does not support using aborted baby remains for medical research. Apparently, the TCCB does. Do you see why the TCCB, and Bishop Olson in particular, are in need of both correction and to meet with someone else on these matters?

It simply cannot be said that a patient's rights are "balanced" in a law that provides them with no rights at all. Read the law. Google what is required by due process. Then read the law again. As I have discussed in various posts above it is patently false to claim any sort of balance between patient and doctor rights, due process protection, constitutionality, or morality under Catholic Church doctrine. Balance is not just lacking, it is non-existent.

The TCCB is actively opposing the death penalty in Texas. While I make no statement on the morality of that, it is important to note here the irony: people on death row received full due process rights - both substantive and procedural - that the ill patient in the hospital is entirely denied by the law that the TCCB claims is "indispensable for ensuring dignity at the end of life." The convicted felon has a right to appeal his conviction, any denial of due process rights, etc. The TCCB supports the denial of due process rights for the ill patient but cries out to the Heavens for the convicted criminal who received those very rights TADA and the TCCB (and TAL and TLC) deny to the ill. How does this make sense?

Further, I have written before about the TCCB's usage of the language "prolonging death," how unfortunate, even nonsensical it is, and how it shows the true philosophy here. Not only does the TCCB use that language, but so do those promoting TADA in the PolitiFact article, which I discussed here. I said there, referring to my prior post on Bishop Gracida's blog, the following:

There is so much wrong with this letter [from the TCCB in 2014], but a few things occurred to me immediately. It refers to “unnecessarily prolong[ing] a patient’s death…” as a reason to withdraw care. Such is an awkwardly worded statement that literally makes no sense. The definition of prolong is “to extend the duration of,” but we cannot extend the duration of death. Once you die it’s done; this earthly life is over. It seems to me that what they are saying is that they don’t want to unnecessarily prolong a patient’s life.

The whole letter, like everything else the TCC has done on this issue, is focused on how soon we can withdraw care so one can die. It uses the term “dignity” again veering very closely to arguing for “death with dignity.” This sickens me to my core. From the beginning of the HB 1444/SB 303 battle, there were references to “dignity” and I noted then that:

When you lose control of the language, you are well on your way to losing the battle and even the soul of the movement. When representatives of the Texas Catholic Conference are making statements like: “The Texas Catholic Conference advocates advance directives reform legislation that recognizes the dignity of a natural death. Human intervention that would deliberately cause, hasten, or unnecessarily prolong the patient’s death violates the dignity of the human person.” This is very close to just saying, “We favor death with dignity.” This is a concept we in the pro-life movement have heretofore rejected. I am sorry to see that change.

The TCCB has not (to my knowledge) wavered in its opposition to anything that might keep you here longer if that's what you wish. Your "death with dignity" should not be "prolonged" - whether you like it or not. Your life? Not so much concerned about prolonging that - given this consistent choice of language - but we must get you to that death ASAP - death must not be prolonged. (This also really affects the individual's preparation for dying, facing judgment, and hopefully meeting God. There is a whole spiritual process that needs time to unfold here that should not be truncated. Perhaps in time I will write more about this. It has been the topic of discussion between myself and certain ethicists and religious leaders. It should not be dismissed, but is beyond the scope of this particular post.)

Also, and this cannot be stated enough, I have never gone into a hospital ethics committee hearing and had doctors complain that their consciences were violated by continuing life-sustaining treatment, nor has anyone else I've ever talked to that has attended one. Doctors and advocates of the institution of involuntary passive euthanasia for a patient have, however, stated (in front of the family) if the patient were in a forest and had been still that long, he would have been eaten. I wrote about this experience here and used it as part of my testimony before a legislative committee hearing on TADA. Doctors have said that this person was "gone" and would never be the same; that the person the family knew had left. These are quality of life determinations made by people utterly unqualified to do so. No one is qualified to make that decision for you but you or your chosen surrogate.

Significantly, in the wake of Chris Dunn's death, TAL publicly came out in favor of euthanasia and argued that removing life-sustaining care to alleviate "suffering" was "morally legitimate" This is the very definition of euthanasia. Suffering is not the same as a disproportionate burden or harm from the expected outcome of a medical procedure or intervention. I suffer when I have a wisdom tooth pulled, but that procedure is not disproportionate to my needs. See CCC 2278 below, where this is discussed in more detail, as well as who should make that determination. (The Catholic Church also teaches about "redemptive suffering" so this is all the more reason why the decision about how much suffering one wishes to endure must be left to the patient. Again, that is a topic for another post, but not a throw away consideration in this context.)

NOTE AGAIN: The Parish Advisory stated: "Texas Right to Life is not to be confused with Texas Alliance for Life or Texans for Life Coalition, which are separate organizations and remain consistent with the bishops' positions." (Emphasis added.) Arguably then, this is the position of the TCCB. Taking action to alleviate "suffering" (as opposed to the reasons set forth in CCC 2278) is euthanasia which is not supported by the Catholic Church. Doing this against a patient's will is also not supported by the Church. Yet, this this is the position of TAL and TAL's positions, according to this most recent Parish Advisory of the TCCB, are "consistent with the bishops' positions." The TCCB - thankfully - does not go so far as to say these are consistent the the Church's position. This is a distinction with an important difference as this situation makes painfully clear.

Incidentally, there was no factual evidence that Dunn was suffering from his life-sustaining care, even were that a justification to pull the plug on him early against his will. Moreover, he prayed for his lifeas evidenced by the video of him. Moreover, this is all beside the point because a hospital should not be making the decision for you as to whether your death is hastened by the withdrawal of life-sustaining care or not. That is yours and yours alone. And, should you argue that life-sustaining care is not natural, you should know that the hospital in Chris Dunn's case argued that as they did not withdraw his life-sutaining care, his death was "natural."

As I have argued before, if a doctor's conscience is pricked by allowing you to continue your life-sustaining care as your underlying disease, illness, or infirmity consumes you and leads you to a natural death, then why can he not step aside and allow another doctor to take over? Why must the fulfillment of his conscience lead to your hastened death? Your only option under TADA is to, in a maximum of 10 days, find a new facility (which is very difficult and usually impossible to do once the current hospital has made a futility finding) or the hospital can then withdraw your life-sustaining care against your will and hasten your death. You are completely at their mercy.

From the Catholic Church's standpoint, there is no moral justification for this. A supporter of the TCC - who herself had never read TADA before last night - sent me a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2278 as support for TADA. It does not support TADA, the TCC, TAL, or anyone else who promotes involuntary passive euthanasia. Let's take a look:

It says that "[t]he decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected." (Emphasis added.) That in no way supports TADA, involuntary passive euthanasia, or its lack of due process rights.

I want to make one more observation. In Issue 3, "Texas Right to Life's voter guide," the TCCB's Parish Advisory states: "Unfortunately, a number of legislators who have consistently voted for pro-life and end of life legislation have been opposed by Texas Right to Life." Ignoring that the premise of this statement is incorrect - let's look at that language more closely. It does not state that the legislators have voted for pro-life (or even pro-patient) end of life legislation. Rather, it says that they have voted for end-of-life legislation (read: "ending your life prematurely against your will" legislation). Exactly. Freudian slip? Perhaps. Consistent? Yes. Of course TxRTL will oppose them! Gosh. (That is not the only problem with Issue 3, but it relates to the problems with Issue 2, which is the point of this particular post.)

End-of-life legislation could actually be pro-life - it could actually promote the value and dignity of each life until a person's natural death, but that has been a difficult task - because of the TCC, TAL, and TLC (which has gone back and forth on TADA).

Finally, I have been asked what the difference is between the TCCB and TxRTL on end-of-life (and I'd add to this refusal to treat) issues. I do not speak for TxRTL at all. I do not have that authority. My view of the difference between the two organizations is based on my own observations, statements by the organizations, review of their written works, testimony before the legislature, etc. With that caveat, as I see it, TxRTL wants, at a minimum, the patient's will to be upheld which, if we persist in having a law like TADA, should at least require due process rights for ill patients in hospitals so that a decision may not be made to withdraw their life-sustaining treatment against their will in a bid to hasten their death because someone else has decided that their life has no value, no quality, and is futile. Ideally, this would require a hospital to treat until a patient could be transferred to another facility willing to continue that patient's life-sustaining treatment until their underlying condition (if any) results in their natural death or until natural death otherwise occurs.

The TCCB supports TADA as a "balance of patient autonomy and [ ] physician conscience protection." See Parish Advisory at par. 2. The TCCB, as noted above in their Amici Curiae brief, "strongly supports §166.046 as indispensable for ensuring dignity at the end of life." Id. at 2. As noted, the TCCB sees "unnecessarily prolong[ing] the patient's death [as] violat[ive of] the dignity of the human person." Id. at 1. The TCCB has opposed such reforms as treatment until transfer and in the otherwise fatally flawed SB 303 faux TADA reform bill in 2013, and would only agree to extend the time to transfer from 10 to 14 days. Gee, thanks.

TxRTL, as I see it, does not believe that TADA provides any patient autonomy at all and therefore provides no "balance" between that and doctor conscience. It is important to note that there is a difference between life-sustaining care and life-saving care. This is not a call to provide what the Church has called "extraordinary measures." It is not chemotherapy or radiation or such treatments. Rather it is "basic" care such as artificially administered nutrition and hydration or even ventilators; oxygen, like food and water, is necessary to life. (Since the removal of artificially administered nutrition and hydration has been tightened up, I have personally seen an increase in hospitals wanting to remove ventilators from patients to hasten their death now.) Primarily, I believe that TxRTL sees the patient's wishes as paramount and does not see why there cannot be real balance between doctors and patients without the patient's hastened death through the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining care being necessary.

So now you have yet more evidence as to the TCCB's support of TADA and the nature of the dispute.

I renew my request to Bishop Olson to meet with me to discuss these matters. I submit that the evidence is overwhelming that he has not been well-served by his advisors on these matters. This Advisory is just an example of the problems in the TCCB and the Church as a whole. As I have said, this should be the genesis of a larger movement to take back our troubled Church.

Indeed, it has been suggested to me that I may actually have a moral obligations to do what I am doing. And so do the rest of you!

According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they ["the Christian faithful" or laity] possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice toward their pastors, and attentive to the common advantage and the dignity of persons.

(Emphasis added.)

Please call, email, tweet, or mail Bishop Olson and respectfully request that he meet with me to discuss these issues that affect us all, Catholic or not.